In my Java project, I have a need to work with a handful of strings (about 10-30 at a time). I want a data structure to hold them, with properties like so:
Can assign a unique name to each string
The unique names can be used in the code just as if they were variables, with support for IDE auto-complete, no calling getValue() or toString(), etc.
Can iterate over each value in the data structure
In practice, I'd want the code to look something like this:
MagicalDataStructure<String> mds = new MagicalDataStructure(
FirstString = "foo",
SecondString = "bar",
);
/*
This section would output:
foo
bar
*/
for (String value : mds) {
System.out.println(value);
}
/*
This section would output:
The first value is: foo
*/
System.out.println("The first value is: " + FirstString);
Things I've considered:
A class full of static finals. This satisfies #1 and #2, but I can't iterate over them -- at least not without resorting to dark-mojo reflection.
A dictionary. This satisfies #1 and #3, but the keys wouldn't be auto-completable, and there's additional syntax involved in accessing the values.
An enum. This also solves #1 and #3, but accessing the string value takes a little bit of extra code.
Is there a data structure, library, etc that will do what I want?
I would definitely favor a Map for this:
public enum PagePath {
PATH1,
PATH2,
// etc.
}
public static final Map<PagePath, String> ALL_PATHS;
static {
Map<PagePath, String> paths = new EnumMap<>(PagePath.class);
paths.put(PagePath.PATH1, "/html/div[0]/h1");
paths.put(PagePath.PATH2, "/html//form/input[id='firstname']");
// etc.
// Make sure no one breaks things by removing entries
// or by adding enum constants while forgetting to account
// for them in the above Map.
if (!paths.keySet().equals(EnumSet.allOf(PagePath.class))) {
throw new RuntimeException(
"Map does not have entries for all PagePath constants!");
}
ALL_PATHS = Collections.unmodifiableMap(paths);
}
Another possibility, as you’ve mentioned, is using String constants. You can place the initialization of those constants inside the initialization of the “all values” list, to make sure none of them are forgotten:
public static final String PATH1;
public static final String PATH2;
// etc.
public static final Collection<String> ALL_PATHS;
static {
ALL_PATHS = Collections.unmodifiableCollection(Arrays.asList(
PATH1 = "/html/div[0]/h1",
PATH2 = "/html//form/input[id='firstname']",
// etc.
));
}
If someone removes a constant, they’ll be forced to remove its initialization from the Arrays.asList call. If someone adds a constant, and keeps it consistent with the other constants’ declarations, they will be forced to add it to the ALL_PATHS List, since failing to do so would mean it never gets initialized, which compiler will catch.
If your strings are properties your may want to use RessourceBundle or Properties. This can be use to solve problem 1/3.
To solve problem 2, you may create Enum that are Keys to your HashMap so that you need to write hashMap.get(enum) that will auto-complete everything. This solution add words but benefit from auto-completion.
Can you just write a custom method to return the string values using enum?
public enum MagicalDataStructure {
FirstString("foo"),
SecondString("bar");
String value;
MagicalDataStructure(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static List<String> getMagicalStrings() {
List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>();
for (MagicalDataStructure item : MagicalDataStructure.values()) {
strings.add(item.value);
}
return strings;
}
}
And call the function wherever you need to iterate:
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (String magicalString: MagicalDataStructure.getMagicalStrings()) {
System.out.println(magicalString);
}
}
How about this :) The main idea here is the following we use the EnumMap as a base for our CustomEnumMap. My understanding is that you don't need put methods so our first task is to actually throw Unsupported Operation for them. The second step is to define the different enums with the values they are actually representing. The third step is achieved through a static method that converts any Enumeration into our CustomEnumMap. How the map is later used you can see for yourself.
There is one place for improvement though and it is the implementation of the static method. Unfortunately I am just learning java 8 lambdas so I was not able to implement it fast in a good way. But I will work on that and will give you the final implementation of this method later. Or is someone wants to help me out with it is welcome.
public static class CustomEnumMap<K extends Enum<K>,V> extends EnumMap<K, V> {
public CustomEnumMap(EnumMap<K, ? extends V> m) {
super(m);
}
#Override
public V put(K key, V value) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
#Override
public void putAll(Map<? extends K, ? extends V> m) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
public static enum EnumA {
FIRST("value1"),SECOND("value2"),THREE("value3");
private String value;
private EnumA(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String toString() {
return value;
}
}
public static enum EnumB {
FIRST("value1"),SECOND("value2");
private String value;
private EnumB(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String toString() {
return value;
}
}
public static <T extends Enum<T>> CustomEnumMap<T, String> toMap(T[] myenum) {
return new CustomEnumMap<T,String>(new EnumMap<T,String>( Arrays.stream(myenum).collect(Collectors.toMap(t->(T)t, t->t.toString()))));
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
CustomEnumMap<EnumA, String> enumA = toMap(EnumA.values());
CustomEnumMap<EnumA, String> enumB = toMap(EnumA.values());
for (String stringA : enumA.values()) {
System.out.print(stringA);
}
System.out.println("");
for (String stringB : enumB.values()) {
System.out.print(stringB);
}
}
Related
I have to use a map which stores keys of type Integer, String and Long only.
One solution: To store type Object and in put method check with instanceof operator. Is there any better solution, maybe with enum
You can use a map and storing Long as String into it
or you can use two different hashmap and duplicate put/get methods. If you have two types, it is probably for two different things, and having two different map should probably be the correct answer
Create a class that has a map as a member and add methods that will store and retrieve int and long as Strings.
class MyMap {
private Map mabObject = Map<String, Object>;
public void add(long key, Object value) {
mapObject.put(Long.toString(key),value);
}
public void add(String key, Object value) {
mapObject.put(key, value);
}
public Object get(long key) {
return mapObject.get(Long.toString(key));
}
public Object get(String key) {
return mapObject.get(key);
}
}
I agree with Paul Boddington's comment, and the need of such trick shows that code smells.
Just for a funny excercise (not for production code) I've made an example that shows what we can do in compile time for limiting types of keys in a map.
For example we can create a wrapper allowing only values of specific classes.
common/map/Wrap.java
package common.map;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class Wrap<T> {
private T value;
private Wrap(T value){
this.value = value;
}
public T get() {
return this.value;
}
/*
* it's important to implement this method
* if we intend to use Wrap instances as map's key
*
* and it's needed to see that hash codes are computing differently in different classes,
* and depending on `allowedClasses` contents we can face some unexpected collisions
* so if you care of performance - test your maps usage accurately
*/
public int hashCode() {
return this.value.hashCode();
}
/*
* static
*/
private static List<Class> allowedClasses = Arrays.asList(Long.class, String.class);
public static <T> Wrap<T> create(Class<? extends T> clazz, T value) {
if (!allowedClasses.contains(clazz)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unexpected class " + clazz);
}
return new Wrap<>(value);
}
public static <T> Wrap<T> create(AllowedClasses allowedClass, T value) {
return create(allowedClass.clazz, value);
}
public enum AllowedClasses {
LONG(Long.class),
STRING(String.class);
private Class clazz;
AllowedClasses(Class clazz) {
this.clazz = clazz;
}
}
}
And let's run it
common/map/Example.java
package common.map;
import common.map.Wrap.AllowedClasses;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class Example {
public static void main(String... args) {
Map<Wrap, Object> map = new HashMap<>();
// next two lines create wrappers for values of types we added to enum AllowedClasses
// but since enums cannot have type parameters, we are not able to check
// if the second parameter type is compatible with a type associated with given enum value
// so I think usage of enum is useless for your purpose
Wrap<?> valLong0 = Wrap.create(AllowedClasses.LONG, "the string in place of Long is OK");
Wrap<?> valString0 = Wrap.create(AllowedClasses.STRING, 12345);
// from the next lines you can see how we can use the Wrap class to keep
// only allowed types to be associated with the map keys
Wrap<Long> valLong = Wrap.create(Long.class, 1L); // legal
Wrap<String> valString = Wrap.create(String.class, "abc"); // legal
Wrap<String> valWrong = Wrap.create(String.class, 123); // doesn't compile
Wrap<Object> valWrong2 = Wrap.create(Object.class, 123); // compiles but throws exception in runtime
Object obj = ThirdParty.getObjectOfUnknownClass();
Wrap<?> valDynamic = Wrap.create(obj.getClass(), obj); // compiles but MAYBE throws exception in runtime
// so we get to this point only if all the wrappers are legal,
// and we can add them as keys to the map
map.put(valLong, new Object());
map.put(valString, new Object());
map.put(valDynamic, new Object());
}
}
HashMap<DataType1,DataType2>hm = new HashMap<DataType1,DataType2>();
or
Map<DataType1,DataType2> m = new HashMap<DataType1,DataType2>();
m.put(key, value);
Instead of DataType1 & DataType2 you can add Integer,String,Long ,etc. and use the put(key,value) method to enter key and values into the HashMap.
I have such enum class in java
public enum MockTypes
{
// Atlantis mocks
ATLANTIS_VERIFY("ATLANTIS", "verify"),
ATLANTIS_CREATE_RECORD("ATLANTIS", "createRecord"),
...
private String m_adaptor;
private String m_step;
private MockTypes( String adaptor, String step)
{
m_adaptor = adaptor;
m_step = step;
}
public String getAdaptor()
{
return m_adaptor;
}
public String getStep()
{
return m_step;
}
I have to implement method that returns enum value by adaptor and step parameter.
public MockTypes getMockTypeByName(String adaptor, String step)
but I have no idea how. Could someone help me?
public MockTypes getMockTypeByName(String adaptor, String step)
{
for(MockTypes m : MockTypes.values())
{
if(m.getAdaptor().equals(adaptor) &&
m.getStep().equals(step)) return m;
}
return null;
}
If you want a "constant-time" solution that doesn't involve looking up values, your best option is to initialize a constant Map in a static block in the MockType class.
If you're up for using Guava, it'll actually be relatively pleasant:
public enum MockType {
...
private static final ImmutableTable<String, String, MockType> LOOKUP_TABLE;
static {
ImmutableTable.Builder<String, String, MockType> builder =
ImmutableTable.builder();
for (MockType mockType : MockType.values()) {
builder.put(mockType.getAdaptor(), mockType.getStep(), mockType);
}
LOOKUP_TABLE = builder.build();
}
public static MockType getMockType(String adaptor, String step) {
return LOOKUP_TABLE.get(adaptor, step);
}
}
(Disclosure: I contribute to Guava.)
The alternative is going to be relatively similar -- construct a Map<String, Map<String, LookupType>> in a static block, and do lookups from there -- though it's going to require somewhat more work.
You can use enum's values() method to obtain a list of all the defined values. You can then loop through this list and find the values you're interested in that match the ones sent as parameters to the method.
Let's say I want to store potential keys and potential values for those keys as constants. How can I achieve this? Or should I avoid it altogether?
This is the aproach that I thought of myself, but as you'll be able to see, it has an obvious downfall.
public static class Foo {
public static final String KEY = "foo" ;
public static class Values {
public static final String BAR = "bar" ;
public static final String HEY = "hey" ;
}
}
public static class Another {
public static final String KEY = "another" ;
public static class Values {
public static final String ONE = "1" ;
public static final String TWO = "two" ;
public static final String THREE = "THREE" ;
}
}
Which allows me to access these keys like so
miscellaneousMethod( Foo.KEY, Foo.Values.BAR )
miscellaneousMethod( Another.KEY, Another.Values.TWO )
However, I don't exactly want to write a separate static inner class for each key / possible-values pair.
Is there a better way to store key value pairs as constants?
I want to store them as constants for later comparison with generated hashmaps. So that I can ask stuff like this:
if( map.get( Foo.KEY ).equals( Foo.Values.HEY ) ) { /* do stuff */ }
If they are all constants, you might use an Enum:
public enum ValueEnum {
FOO("foo", "bar", "hey"),
ANOTHER("another", "1", "two", "THREE"),
;
private final String key;
private final Set<String> values;
private ValueEnum(String key, String... values) {
this.key = key;
this.values = Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet<String>(Arrays.asList(values)));
}
public final boolean isInMap(Map<String,String> map) {
if(map.containsKey(key)) {
return values.contains(map.get(key));
}
else {
return false;
}
}
}
then
if( ValueEnum.FOO.isInMap(map) ) { /* do stuff */ }
Please avoid constants like that. For constants use the Java enum type. It compiles under the hood as classes so you get type safety, and you can also use them in switch statements. It's nice to be able to add methods to them too.
There's a nice example here:
http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/enum.html
A longer discussion (with many examples) is here:
http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/enums.html
If possible, can you not just specify these keys in an XML file and use Java XML binding (JAXB) to load them.
you would avoid having to rebuild and deploy your code when and if the keys change.
Put the constants in a Map and then make it unmodifiable using the method Collections.unmodifiableMap().
I have several Java enums that looks something like below (edited for confidentiality, etc).
In each case, I have a lookup method that I'm really not satisfied with; in the example below, it is findByChannelCode.
public enum PresentationChannel {
ChannelA("A"),
ChannelB("B"),
ChannelC("C"),
ChannelD("D"),
ChannelE("E");
private String channelCode;
PresentationChannel(String channelCode) {
this.channelCode = channelCode;
}
public String getChannelCode() {
return this.channelCode;
}
public PresentationChannel findByChannelCode(String channelCode) {
if (channelCode != null) {
for (PresentationChannel presentationChannel : PresentationChannel.values()) {
if (channelCode.equals(presentationChannel.getChannelCode())) {
return presentationChannel;
}
}
}
return null;
}
}
The problem is, I feel silly doing these linear lookups when I could just be using a HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>. So I thought of the solution below, but it's a little messier that I would hope and, more to the point, I didn't care to re-invent the wheel when surely someone else has come across this. I wanted to get some of the sage wisdom of this group: what is the proper way to index an enum by value?
My solution:
ImmutableMap<String, PresentationChannel> enumMap = Maps.uniqueIndex(ImmutableList.copyOf(PresentationChannel.values()), new Function<PresentationChannel, String>() {
public String apply(PresentationChannel input) {
return input.getChannelCode();
}});
and, in the enum:
public static PresentationChannel findByChannelCode(String channelCode) {
return enumMap.get(channelCode);
}
I think you're using non-JDK classes here right?
A similar solution with JDK API:
private static final Map<String, PresentationChannel> channels = new HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>();
static{
for (PresentationChannel channel : values()){
channels.put(channel.getChannelCode(), channel);
}
}
I wanted to get some of the sage wisdom of this group: what is the proper way to index an enum by value?
Quite possibly not doing it at all.
While hash tables provide O(1) lookup, they also have quite a large constant overhead (for hash calculations etc), so for small collections a linear search may well be faster (if "the efficient way" is your definition of "the proper way").
If you just want a DRY way to do it, I suppose Guava's Iterables.find is an alternative:
return channelCode == null ? null : Iterables.find(Arrays.asList(values()),
new Predicate<PresentationChannel>() {
public boolean apply(PresentationChannel input) {
return input.getChannelCode().equals(channelCode);
}
}, null);
Why don't you name your members A, B, C, D, E and use valueOf?
I was looking for something similar and found on this site a simple, clean and straight to the point way. Create and initialize a static final map inside your enum and add a static method for the lookup, so it would be something like:
public enum PresentationChannel {
ChannelA("A"),
ChannelB("B"),
ChannelC("C"),
ChannelD("D"),
ChannelE("E");
private String channelCode;
PresentationChannel(String channelCode) {
this.channelCode = channelCode;
}
public String getChannelCode() {
return this.channelCode;
}
private static final Map<String, PresentationChannel> lookup
= new HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>();
static {
for(PresentationChannel pc : EnumSet.allOf(PresentationChannel.class)) {
lookup.put(pc.getChannelCode(), pc);
}
}
public static PresentationChannel get(String channelCode) {
return lookup.get(channelCode);
}
}
for few values that's ok, iteration through the values array(). One note only: use smth like that. values() clones the array on each invocation.
static final PresentationChannel[] values=values();
static PresentationChannel getByCode(String code){
if (code==null)
return null;
for(PresentationChannel channel: values) if (code.equals(channel.channelCode)) return channel;
return null;
}
if you have more Channels.
private static final Map<String code, PresentationChannel> map = new HashMap<String code, PresentationChannel>();
static{//hashmap sucks a bit, esp if you have some collisions so you might need to initialize the hashmap depending on the values count and w/ some arbitrary load factor
for(PresentationChannel channel: values()) map.put(channel.channelCode, channel);
}
static PresentationChannel getByCode(String code){
return map.get(code);
}
Edit:
So implement an helper interface, like shown below, another example why java syntax generics blows and sometimes - better not used.
Usage PresentationChannel channel = EnumRepository.get(PresentationChannel.class, "A");
There will be overhead but well, it's quite fool proof.
public interface Identifiable<T> {
T getId();
public static class EnumRepository{
private static final ConcurrentMap<Class<? extends Identifiable<?>>, Map<?, ? extends Identifiable<?>>> classMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<Class<? extends Identifiable<?>>, Map<?,? extends Identifiable<?>>>(16, 0.75f, 1);
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static <ID, E extends Identifiable<ID>> E get(Class<E> clazz, ID value){
Map<ID, E> map = (Map<ID, E>) classMap.get(clazz);
if (map==null){
map=buildMap(clazz);
classMap.putIfAbsent(clazz, map);
}
return map.get(value);
}
private static <ID, E extends Identifiable<ID>> Map<ID, E> buildMap( Class<E> clazz){
E[] enumConsts = clazz.getEnumConstants();
if (enumConsts==null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException(clazz+ " is not enum");
HashMap<ID, E> map = new HashMap<ID, E>(enumConsts.length*2);
for (E e : enumConsts){
map.put(e.getId(), e);
}
return map;
}
}
}
enum X implements Identifiable<String>{
...
public String getId(){...}
}
Minor warning: if you put Identifiable somewhere out there, and many projects/wepapp depend on it (and share it) and so on, it's possible to leak classes/classloaders.
Here is another way to implement an unmodifiable map:
protected static final Map<String, ChannelCode> EnumMap;
static {
Map<String, ChannelCode> tempMap = new HashMap<String, ChannelCode>();
tempMap.put("A", ChannelA);
tempMap.put("B", ChannelB);
tempMap.put("C", ChannelC);
tempMap.put("D", ChannelD);
tempMap.put("E", ChannelE);
EnumMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap(tempMap);
}
You can use EnumMap.get(someCodeAthroughE) to quickly retrieve the ChannelCode. If the expression is null then your someCodeAthroughE was not found.
If you are expecting the provided channelCode to always be valid then you can just try and get the correct instance of the enum using the valueOf() method. If the provided value is invalid you can return null or propagate the exception.
try {
return PresentationChannel.valueOf(channelCode);
catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
//do something.
}
Can I contain two different types in a collection? For example, can I have List< String U Integer > ?
Short answer? No. You can (of course) have a List of Objects, but then you can put anything in it, not just String or Integer objects.
You could create a list of container objects, and that container object would contain either an Integer or String (perhaps via generics). A little more hassle.
public class Contained<T> {
T getContained();
}
and implement Contained<Integer> and Contained<String>.
Of course, the real question is why you want to do this? I would expect a collection to contain objects of the same type, and then I can iterate through and perform actions on these objects without worrying what they are. Perhaps your object hierarchy needs further thought?
Nope. You have a couple of alternatives, though:
You can use a List < Object > and stash whatever you like; or
You can use a List < Class-with-2-members > and put your data in one of those class members.
EDIT: Example.
class UnionHolder {
public String stringValue;
public int intValue;
}
List < UnionHolder > myList
...
Of course you'll need a bit of additional code to figure out which kind of data to pull out of the UnionHolder object you just got out of your list. One possibility would be to have a 3rd member which has different values depending on which it is, or you could, say, have a member function like
public boolean isItAString() { return (this.stringValue != null }
If you are doing something like functional programming in Java 8 or above, you may want to try JavaSealedUnions:
Union2.Factory<String, Integer> factory = GenericUnions.doubletFactory();
Union2<String, Integer> strElem = factory.first("hello");
Union2<String, Integer> intElem = factory.second(3);
List<Union2<String, Integer>> list = Array.asList(strElem, intElem);
for (Union2<String, Integer> elem : list) {
elem.continued(
strElem -> System.out.println("string: " + strElem),
intElem -> System.out.println("integer: " + intElem));
}
Haven't tested this, but I think you got the idea.
In addition to the nice answers already provided ...
Possibly, you have the two data types in your algorithm. But you may not have to put them in the same list...
Creating two typed lists could be the clearer for your algorithm, you would still keep the "type-safeness" and carry all your data. Two code samples follow, the second grouping the two lists in a MyData object.
public class Algorithm1 {
public void process(List<String> strings, List<Integer> integers) {
...
}
}
--------------------------------------
public class DataPair {
public List<String> strings;
public List<Integer> integers;
}
public class Algorithm2 {
public void process(DataPair dataPair) {
...
}
}
what you're decribing is the perfect use case for the Visitor pattern
100% statically type-checked
doesn't need Java 8 or above
usage:
List<UnionType> unionTypes = Arrays
.asList(new StringContainer("hello"), new IntegerContainer(4));
for (UnionType unionType : unionTypes) {
unionType.when(new UnionType.Cases<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer is(StringContainer stringContainer) {
// type-specific handling code
}
#Override
public Integer is(IntegerContainer integerContainer) {
// type-specific handling code
}
});
}
boilerplate code:
interface UnionType {
<R> R when(Cases<R> c);
interface Cases<R> {
R is(StringContainer stringContainer);
R is(IntegerContainer integerContainer);
}
}
class StringContainer implements UnionType {
private final String value;
public StringContainer(String value) { this.value = value; }
public String getValue() { return value; }
#Override
public <R> R when(Cases<R> cases) {
return cases.is(this);
}
}
class IntegerContainer implements UnionType {
private final Integer value;
public IntegerContainer(Integer value) { this.value = value; }
public Integer getValue() { return value; }
#Override
public <R> R when(Cases<R> cases) {
return cases.is(this);
}
}
No. Think about it this way: with generics, the whole idea is to provide type safety. That would not be possible if you could put Objects of different types into it.
You can use the non-generic java.util.List for your purpose.
If you want to ensure that only String or Integer objects enter the list, you could create your own List implementation like so:
public class MySpecialList {
private List list= new LinkedList();
...
public void add(final String string) {
list.add(string);
}
public void add(final Integer integer) {
list.add(integer);
}
...
// add rest of List style methods
}
Drawback: you loose the List interface clarity...